General 2016 Blue Jays discussion thread

[Nabru]

So is Russell Martin's contract officially an albatross now? Any chance the Jays can salvage good baseball out of him the next 3.5 years?

[nextyear]

So is Russell Martin's contract officially an albatross now? Any chance the Jays can salvage good baseball out of him the next 3.5 years?

 

It seems like the past month has been good for Martin.

[Governator]

It seems like the past month has been good for Martin.

 

Yea he's been great this month at the plate, on base over .400. His defense has not past the eye test tho, tough time blocking balls and runners are stealing on him regularly, last year they were afraid to run.

[RealAccountant]

So do you guys think we will be fighting for a wild card this year or are we goign to do better

[BTS]

So is Russell Martin's contract officially an albatross now? Any chance the Jays can salvage good baseball out of him the next 3.5 years?

 

I imagine that Shatkins wouldn't think twice about dumping him in the offseason if someone wanted him. 3/60 is just too much for him.

[KingKat]

I imagine that Shatkins wouldn't think twice about dumping him in the offseason if someone wanted him. 3/60 is just too much for him.

 

Yeah well taking the two best seasons off a long term contract and shaving the rest is a no brainer. That's why I'm 100% in favour of player opt outs.

[Pendleton]

He's 6-4, not going to happen

 

His W/L record has no bearing, Hutchison was 13-5 last year.

[Governator]

Yeah well taking the two best seasons off a long term contract and shaving the rest is a no brainer. That's why I'm 100% in favour of player opt outs.

 

 

Why would players opt out of a guaranteed contract they couldn't get elsewhere though?

[KingKat]

Why would players opt out of a guaranteed contract they couldn't get elsewhere though?

 

They wouldn't but that doesn't matter. It's still beneficial to the team to have them.

[KingKat]

If you consistently give out opt-outs, you'll end up with much more dead money than if you don't. Why would it be beneficial to the team?

 

Why you you have more dead money? You'd commit to the front end of the deal either way. In some cases, you would lose the back end. Why would that mean you have more dead money? If anything it would occasionally save you from dead money.

[Dick_Pole]

Why you you have more dead money? You'd commit to the front end of the deal either way. In some cases, you would lose the back end. Why would that mean you have more dead money? If anything it would occasionally save you from dead money.

 

Dead money only applies to bad contracts.

 

Let's say you sign 10 players to contracts at the end of this season, and all of them have players options starting in 2020. 5 turn out to be busts while 5 others are stars. The 5 who are busts - you're stuck with. The 5 who are stars will opt out and you'll have to pay more to sign them again or replace the production (assuming no cheap internal replacement option exists). If you have the 5 stars signed you can keep them, or trade them. 2020 will look like a disaster with some payroll flexibility as opposed to okay with little payroll flexibility.

[BTS]

Hi Blue Jays fans,

 

We are Seaters, a proprietary technology creates an intelligent & ranked waiting list with a fair communication on the likelihood of a fan to get a seat at an event that they originally missed out on getting tickets to. The product is available on mobile devices (iOS and Android) as well as on the internet. We just created a fan group for the Toronto Blue Jays and would love to have you guys join us! By signing up to this fan group, you will be able to sign up for tickets to games that you missed out on getting tickets!

 

I look forward to seeing for Blue Jays fans joining us!

 

Mods

[KingKat]

The 5 who are stars will opt out and you'll have to pay more to sign them again or replace the production (assuming no cheap internal replacement option exists).

 

I don't think this is a correct assumption. Just because the players didn't bust initially doesn't mean they are sure to provide value at the end of the contract. It's likely that several of them wouldn't in which case it becomes someone else's problem which is a win. Fact is you get the best years of the contract for less overall commitment. That's a deal you would do every time if it were possible initially. You're not going to end up with more dead money doing this. The bad contracts will still be the bad contracts and the good ones will be shorter which is also good because it mitigates the risk of them going bad midstream. It's win-win. The optics make it looks like it's only beneficial to the player but it's also beneficial to the team.

[burlingtonbandit]

I don't think this is a correct assumption. Just because the players didn't bust initially doesn't mean they are sure to provide value at the end of the contract. It's likely that several of them wouldn't in which case it becomes someone else's problem which is a win. Fact is you get the best years of the contract for less overall commitment. That's a deal you would do every time if it were possible initially. You're not going to end up with more dead money doing this. The bad contracts will still be the bad contracts and the good ones will be shorter which is also good because it mitigates the risk of them going bad midstream. It's win-win. The optics make it looks like it's only beneficial to the player but it's also beneficial to the team.

 

I don't see what you don't get.

 

If you sign a player to a 5 year contract and its worth 20 million per year with an opt out after 2 years. If he puts up 10 WAR the first 2 years its not a good thing he opts out because the production you lose is worth more than the 3 years and 60 million left on the contract.

 

Also if you sign a similar contract and the player is horrible say Pablo Sandoval for example. Well then you just wasted 100 million because he isn't opting out.

[Dick_Pole]

I don't think this is a correct assumption. Just because the players didn't bust initially doesn't mean they are sure to provide value at the end of the contract. It's likely that several of them wouldn't in which case it becomes someone else's problem which is a win. Fact is you get the best years of the contract for less overall commitment. That's a deal you would do every time if it were possible initially. You're not going to end up with more dead money doing this. The bad contracts will still be the bad contracts and the good ones will be shorter which is also good because it mitigates the risk of them going bad midstream. It's win-win. The optics make it looks like it's only beneficial to the player but it's also beneficial to the team.

 

I feel like there's something in Bayes Theorem that would help explain/debunk this line of reasoning, but thinking of statistics brings back nightmares of high school.

 

At off-season 2016, yes signing player options mitigates the risk of the contract going bad at that time. But at off-season 2019 when it's been shown that the player's contract isn't going bad midstream, he walks. Only the lousy players remain and you have to hope they turn it around out of nowhere.

[THANOS]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/teams/chicago-white-sox/blue-jays-white-sox-takeaways-wherefore-art-thou-stromeo/

 

Morosi is advocating for Stroman to be sent down, and feels we shouldn't settle for "just good" when he has the potential to be great. That's his reasoning for sending him down.

[burlingtonbandit]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/teams/chicago-white-sox/blue-jays-white-sox-takeaways-wherefore-art-thou-stromeo/

 

Morosi is advocating for Stroman to be sent down, and feels we shouldn't settle for "just good" when he has the potential to be great. That's his reasoning for sending him down.

 

why the f*** do we care what Jon Morosi thinks?

[BTS]

Ah, the magical AAA fountain. Just let players soak there for awhile and they return better versions of themselves than when they left. Even though literally everything is worse there.

[THANOS]

why the f*** do we care what Jon Morosi thinks?

 

Some certainly might, it's an interesting audio. No need to be a gigantic assclown. I'm starting to wonder if you have mega social issues.

 

Another good piece here:

 

http://www.tsn.ca/stroman-s-struggles-tied-to-reliance-on-sinking-pitches-1.516323

[GD]

the BB/THANOS rivalry might be the most annoying in forum history

[BTS]

More annoying development?

 

1. Stroman being garbage.

2. Thanos whining incessantly about Stroman being garbage.

[THANOS]

the BB/THANOS rivalry might be the most annoying in forum history

 

It's more one-sided than anything. One guy following around another like a lost puppy and bringing them up in random threads is as sad as it gets.

[THANOS]

More annoying development?

 

1. Stroman being garbage.

2. Thanos whining incessantly about Stroman being garbage.

 

The issue is I actually like Stroman and am frustrated about seeing my favourite pitcher throw away the entire plan that got him here.

 

You don't see me saying ridiculous s*** like "Romero 2.0", "just release him", or even worse, "he's too small to start". I'm more pissed because it's wasted talent.

[KingKat]

Only the lousy players remain and you have to hope they turn it around out of nowhere.

 

You would have been stuck with those lousy players regardless of whether you gave them the opt out so I hardly see why that matters nor why everyone brings it up. And you wouldn't lose the good players. You'd just have them for less time which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's arguably better.

[Grant77]

Maybe if you guys called just called these contracts what they are, player options, then you wouldn't be so confused.

 

The unnecessary term 'opt out' might be the most foolish development in baseball in the last decade.

[Dick_Pole]

You would have been stuck with those lousy players regardless of whether you gave them the opt out so I hardly see why that matters nor why everyone brings it up. And you wouldn't lose the good players. You'd just have them for less time which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's arguably better.

 

If this is what you believe, then I think you have a very cynical view of what baseball players can do in their early to mid 30's.

 

If Bautista had player options during his final three years of the contract, AA would have either had to let him walk or sign him to an extension at a much higher AAV and longer term. Conversely, I think everyone would agree that Bautista going into the 2014 season had substantial trade value.

 

Yes I know this is just one example looking in hindsight to prove my point, but I think your opinion on this is so far to the other extreme that using an example like this has merit. Basically I read it as, "a team should want their 32 year old players to opt out of their contract under every circumstance, even when they put up MVP-like numbers, because chances are they'll decline so much in their 33, 34 and 35 year old seasons that a contract that looks great now will look like s*** in 2 years".

[KingKat]

"a team should want their 32 year old players to opt out of their contract under every circumstance, even when they put up MVP-like numbers, because chances are they'll decline so much in their 33, 34 and 35 year old seasons that a contract that looks great now will look like s*** in 2 years".

 

I mean at this point, the only way to settle the argument would be a rigorous statistical analysis but yeah I think even if you limit the sample to contracts that look good in the first two years, most contracts en up looking bad by the end because of things like sudden decline, injury, etc. Bautista is a weird scenario though because his contract is really, really small for a 5 year contract. Usually those are like 20 millions per which makes the odds of surplus value much lower. That's an outlier contract.

[vdartanian]

Hi Blue Jays fans,

 

We are Seaters, a proprietary technology creates an intelligent & ranked waiting list with a fair communication on the likelihood of a fan to get a seat at an event that they originally missed out on getting tickets to. The product is available on mobile devices (iOS and Android) as well as on the internet. We just created a fan group for the Toronto Blue Jays and would love to have you guys join us! By signing up to this fan group, you will be able to sign up for tickets to games that you missed out on getting tickets!

 

So....a shittier version of StubHub? Sign me up!

[burlingtonbandit]

It's more one-sided than anything. One guy following around another like a lost puppy and bringing them up in random threads is as sad as it gets.

 

Lol come on. If you were so obsessed with Stroman I wouldn't say s***. I just find it funny you have made it your life mission to go on and on and on and on about him.

[KingKat]

The logic is clear enough that in-depth analysis isn't necessary.

 

There are four scenarios in play. The team gives or doesn't give the opt-out, and the player does or does not bust. With an opt-out, you can only get the first two years of the doesn't bust scenario but eat the entire bust scenario. Without an opt-out, you get the full doesn't bust and also eat the entire bust scenario. So you're just cutting out the potential for a full-length good contract. There is a good scenario that you cannot receive.

 

Your bust / doesn't bust dichotomy doesn't work. What are the last years of "don't bust" scenario really worth? My guess is not that much. I think you should feel perfectly fine with pocketing the best years and moving on. You're just assuming that because the front end looked good, the back end will look good but the back end is usually where you sacrifice value in order to get value at the front end. If the player wants to take you off the hook for that, just let him. You still go the best years anyways.